Cypriot case law on copyright remains limited. That is why any decision of the Supreme Constitutional Court examining the nature and protection of authors’ rights carries particular weight — not only for authors themselves, but for anyone who uses musical or other protected works.
On 11 July 2024 the House of Representatives passed an amending law on the collective management of copyright and related rights. The President of the Republic submitted a Reference to the Supreme Constitutional Court, which, in its opinion of 9 April 2025, held unanimously that the law was unconstitutional.
The outcome was not the most significant part
The importance of the opinion does not lie only in the fact that a law was struck down. It lies principally in how the Court approached copyright itself.
The Court treated the author’s right as a property right attracting the constitutional protection afforded to property. It also recalled that copyright constitutes an intangible asset, conferring on the author exclusive powers to exploit the work.
Starting from that premise, the Court went on to examine whether the contested provision — which allowed a user disputing the remuneration demanded to pay only the amount the user considered reasonable until the dispute was resolved — was compatible with the constitutional protection of property and with freedom of contract.
The opinion stands as one of the most significant judicial statements to date on the constitutional dimension of copyright in Cyprus.
What it means in practice
For authors, the decision materially strengthens the arguments available where the remuneration or the terms of exploitation of their works are disputed.
For those organising concerts and cultural events, or otherwise using protected works, the opinion is a reminder that licensing and remuneration obligations are not merely administrative formalities. They are tied to the protection of property rights.
The framework is still developing
Collective management in Cyprus is governed principally by Law 65(I)/2017, which transposed Directive 2014/26/EU. Over recent years the framework has been the subject of significant legislative and judicial developments, which is itself an indication that the area is still taking shape.
The Directive, for its part, rests on a pluralistic model of collective management, under which rightholders retain — subject to its conditions — a meaningful degree of choice as to how their rights are managed and which organisation represents them.
Conclusion
The 2025 opinion did more than determine the fate of one amending law. It confirmed that copyright constitutes a property right enjoying constitutional protection, and that any legislative interference with how those rights are exercised or remunerated is subject to strict constitutional scrutiny.
Need an assessment?
Every case turns on its own facts and on the documents behind them. For an initial assessment of your position, you are welcome to contact the Firm at info@topouzislegal.com.
This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter.